Oh yeah, after years of slagging off this pitiful source of comedy Everyday Feminism finally contacted me and asked for an interview. They may have spelt my name a bit wrong, as I'm now called 'pro science, anti-feminist advocate', but I'm sure that's due to their terrible quality control. This definitely is a one on one interview about my negative opinions on modern feminism, and I will do my best to answer these questions in a respectful manner as possible.
________________________________________________________________
https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/pro-science-anti-feminist/
________________________________________________________________
Cheers for the intro Ginny, although for future reference my nickname is really 'The Uncrowned King of France', and not just some general idiot who you always paint everyone who disagrees with you. I'm not sure you where you got those quotes in the intro from, but my bet would be from a certain Mr. Straw Man. They certainly aren't from me, or anyone in existence for that matter, although having said that I've probably shouted out the second quotation, as that's just a basic fact. It's not a great line of argument to claim that feminism and science support each other, yet simultaneously deny that something as basic as sexual dimorphism exists. That behaviour is the very essence of contradicting scientific methods.
I will certainly agree with Ginny here that feminism as an ideology does not contradict science. If you're talking to people that claim there's scientific evidence against an overall ideology then it suggests you keep the company of people who, like you, don't understand basic scientific principles. It should also be stated that science certainly doesn't support feminism considering the latter is an ideology founded on the promotion of social rights. In any case, good old Ginny is going to dig into my reasoning. Truly a journalist of the ages. This interview is like Frost-Nixon of the feminist world.
Oh Ginny could we please stop conflating gender with sex. One is biological, the other is purely sociological. When you make an argument from science you're referring to sex, which feminist theories seem to strategically ignore. I thought I was being interviewed about my pro-science standpoint, so please don't insult me by shifting the goalposts and confronting me with debatable issues outside the realms of science.
I never thought I would ever see an Everyday Feminist writer lecturing me on the validity of evidence. I'm sure this sentence won't come back to haunt Ginny at all. I do actually agree with you here Ginny, although I would argue sensationalised news bulletins are of no fault to the scientific community, so spare us the lecture and get down to the questions already.
Ah, an actual question, and a very open one subject to meticulous heavy debate in the scientific community. I would personally argue that behavioral science is an incredibly complex field determined by a combination of genetic variation, environmental variation, and genotype by environment variation, as is the case with almost all phenotypic traits in the human body. It's hardly fair to ask me a question which in theory I could write a whole thesis on and then criticise my reasoning for being overly simplistic. I'm sure you're using this question in order to turn around and say, 'well it looks like science cant answer every feminist issue', but this in no way validates your sociological approach to the question which suffers the same faults.
Again the straw man is incredibly strong with this one. I do not believe the reduced number of women in science and maths is solely because of differing brain structure, although I do think this is an element of the scenario. What I certainly don't appreciate is having words put into my mouth about how I believe women are naturally submissive, and that I take the idea of biological determinism literally. What I will say is that the evidence of nature having a substantial effect on the roles of society is far more alluring than to simply blame everything on some mystical power structure called the patriarchy.
I would just like to add that the source used here was from Everyday Feminism. You remember that comment you made on the validity of evidence? You couldn't even make one point without becoming a massive hypocrite. This lack of evidence underlines what I don't like about this argument. Here you appear to simply dismiss a point because you don't agree with it, and actually provide nuanced remarks instead of actual reasoning. Fundamental differences in brain structure mean a great deal in terms of behavioural sciences, so there's always going to be a discussion whether you like it or not. Scientific theories are reliant on assumptions, even hypothetical ones, so this question acts as a very weak generalisation. Speaking of hypothetical points, Ginny has made us a little thought experiment to demonstrate her point. Why how scientific that would be Ginny. That's certainly a viable substitute for actual fucking evidence.
Oh dear, Ginny can't even evaluate her own hypothetical studies. What would be the fucking point in concluding 'D'? What this imaginary study proves is quite fucking straight forward. Men are generally better at anticipating lightning strikes which is associated with the increased size of their so called 'platypus cortex', which may I add should not be capitalised considering it's not a proper noun. I don't where your conclusions come from, but these could only be later determined by further discussion, and so the study doesn't prove any of your conclusions, which I suppose is the point you're trying to make. I still don't know how you could conclude 'C' from the study, as that's just completely irrelevant to the topic.
We can't deduce whether this fictitious ability is biologically determined or socially conditioned with the information provided, but that wasn't the point of the study. That's the problem with using this sort of hypothetical evidence. Yeah great you've created a little scenario that highlights a particular flaw in evolutionary studies, but this doesn't reflect the range of differing papers in the scientific community. I can assure you that scientists in the fields do not make the sort of tenuous connections that you portray here. Well maybe social scientists do, but they're the sort of people who end up working for 'Everyday Feminism'.
Careful about using 'studies' plural when in actual fact you've provided just a singular study. Not making assumptions are we now? You are right to say singular studies aren't any good at making huge generalisations, and that's why findings rely on a scientific community to put their research into context and create an analytical discussion on their findings. Again, this article really does not reflect the discipline of science as a whole.
I would also like to add that your brain is assembled by homeobox genes during development, so yes it is built a certain fucking way, otherwise you wouldn't be functional. You are right that brain development is subjected to different variants in each individual, whether that be natural or environmental, but again you're making this biased assumption that natural processes are trivial. I'm still confused at how any of this disproves the argument that science and feminism are in conflict. Sure you may have argued against some fictional person in your head, but how does any of this relate to feminism? Just because some traits are purely environmental doesn't instantly invalidate the idea of biological determinism and its application in neurosciences.
Psychology is not a fucking science Ginny. This point suffers from the same flaws as the last in that it doesn't refute my anti-feminist arguments. You'll actually find a lot of my arguments are from an evolutionary perspective. In this context you have to generalise from one group to the next irrespective of notable differences, as these biological assumptions are not subjected to your sociological scrutiny; they are merely finding processes universal in nature. Obviously feminists would never keep banging on about generalisations. The idea of toxic masculinity and white privilege are certainly not generalised in any way are they? My scientific generalisations are far more rational than the shit you spew considering the dichotomy between the two sexes is universal irrespective of culture. Remember, environmental variation does not make genetic variation obsolete. Even more importantly gender is not a scientific term, so fuck off with this sociological bullshit.
Oh for fuck sake, you can't complain about generalisations in science and then make possibly the most tenuous point possible about how the system is institutionally sexist and racist. As I've said countless times transgender and intersex individuals do not constitute a biological sex. They are abnormalities, and are rightly discarded from studies concerning biological sex, as they would skew the results far past any meaningful conclusion. And yes, we absolutely can draw major conclusions from these studies. It's not about trust, it's about analysing the empirical evidence between different sexes. My points are based on biology. Are you telling me the biological mechanisms behind sex are fundamentally different in poorly educated pensioners living in the depths of Malawi? Take your sociological nonsense and fuck off.
I'M NOT A SOCIOLOGIST, I'M A SCIENTIST. Please stop shifting the goalposts. I also love how this theoretical study completely ignores the parameters you've been relentlessly barking on about. What about the fucking trans people you fucking sexist? In any case, suppose you've gone through the horror of having a P value lower than 0.05, which I'm sure every scientists has had this daunting moment at many times over their life. In this scenario your findings would not be significant, and you are right to highlight a serious issue stemming from these underwhelming results, although I'm pissed off you decided to link a fucking social sciences article to back it up. Fortunately for science publication bias does not equal grand conspiracy. Yes there may well be intrinsic biases at play, but this doesn't instantly invalidate the whole field, nor does a consensus instantly validate a whole field. Some of the most controversial studies in scientific history have proven to be the most revolutionary. The proof is in the primary literature, not the wordings of an echo chamber. And yes Everyday Feminism, that jibe was aimed at you.
Here we go. Let's promote sociological and psychological data that can't be falsified, whilst simultaneously bashing evolutionary psychology because it 'relies on guesswork'. There seems to be a gross misunderstanding in the difference of hypothesising and just pure guesswork. Evolutionary psychology is not just applying behavioural studies to archaeological finds, it's actually applying biological evidence that we see in nature to explain human behaviour. It's far more than pure imagination, and actually relies on testable hypotheses.
The example you give outlining a basic idea in evolutionary psychology is painfully simplistic, conflating several different ideas that are not reflective at all of the scientific field. It's certainly true that women have evolved to use far more resources in parental investment than men, which is a trend we see almost universally in nature. The reason why men are more aggressive is determined by female choosiness as a result of this investment; males compete for the right to mate. To be honest this biological process isn't even evolutionary psychology, it's basic sexual selection. Sexual selection I would also add is a separate process from the differential levels of survival you mentioned. That's determined by the process of natural selection, which is largely irrelevant in this discussion. Unfortunately for you this scientific theory cares fuck all about the opinions of feminism, yet that doesn't stop you from trying to disprove this theory with all the jargon of feminist biology:
It's important to note that absolutely none of these points have anything to do with disproving basic sexual selection. For starters there is absolutely no evidence for that first claim. Why would prehistoric humans suddenly have a radical shift in social roles? More importantly where the fuck do we see this in related species? What you're essentially suggesting here is that humans have undergone two radical evolutionary changes in behaviour throughout the past million years or so, yet at the same time you're doubting that a singular evolutionary event has the power to ingrain itself in human culture. Are you starting to see how warped your logic is here?
I don't quite understand the second point. Where is the evidence that humans have a social order resembling gorillas rather than our closest ancestors? Are you suggesting some sort of feminist utopia where a division of labour is not based on sex? And yet you have the nerve to criticise scientists for creating artificial narratives. The third point is rendered void by simple theories of kin selection. The idea of paternity is almost universal in nature, ESPECIALLY in social animals such as humans, where gene flow is crucial to their evolution. This idea touches on the controversial theory of group selection, but this is mainly reserved for eusocial insects with differing genomes to that of humans.
The final point is just one big hypothetical. You have no evidence that this ever happened, and it seems completely unlikely considering gender is purely sociological. Remember we're dealing with organisms here that haven't evolved rational thought yet. Contrary to your claims none of these points are in any way realistic. Maybe only start complaining about scientific methods when you actually understand them. Funnily enough contemporary science doesn't have much time for eccentric bullshit like this.
Here we once again go back to these revisionist historical arguments. Do you honestly think science still operates like it did in Victorian England? To be fair this 'archaic' science is still absolutely correct, or are you seriously telling me that male and female brains and bodies are clones of each other? The conclusion is surprise, surprise, not a point about science at all, but the power of sociology. And what better way to prove this than with a vague statement. As I keep saying, sociology is entirely separate from science dear. Science is a method for acquiring knowledge, where as you're preaching an ideology. How in any way do these totally different points support each other?
So thanks for the grilling Everyday Feminism. I'm sure you walked away with a feeling of moral superiority and the false assumption that you had countered my scientifically objective points. You didn't, and instead you chose instead to ramble on about irrelevant sociological points as per usual. Once again you displayed how much you love shifting the goalposts to areas where mature debate is obscured by feelings based rhetoric. Turns out feminism is not supported by science, just pure ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment